CLOTTES J. (dir.) 2012. — L’art pléistocène dans le monde / Pleistocene art of the world / Arte pleistoceno en el mundo Actes du Congrès IFRAO, Tarascon-sur-Ariège, septembre 2010 – Symposium « Art pléistocène en Asie » An overview of Asian palaeoart of the Pleistocene Robert G. BEDNARIK Abstract This critical assessment of the present state of secure knowledge of Pleistocene palaeoart in the continent of Asia considers both the proven occurrences from five countries, and proposed further finds that are of questionable status. The nature and diversity of the available pan-continental evidence is discussed. This survey indicates firstly that, in comparison especially to Europe, this subject has been severely neglected; and secondly, that the known geographical distribution and the paucity of credible instances are the result of such factors as the intensity of research activities and taphonomic factors. The only reasonably informative data derives from a very few areas where research has been focused, and the nature of the Pleistocene finds illustrates significant taphonomic bias –as is also the case in the other continents. In the subject of Pleistocene art, the tail has been wagging the dog for over a century –ever since the concept of a Diluvian rock art was grudgingly accepted after decades of resistance to it. The non-European corpus of such rock art is far greater than that of Europe, which is not surprising: Europe is merely a relatively small appendage of Asia. But while there have been more books, academic and non- academic articles about the Pleistocene art of Europe than there are actually rock art motifs and portable art objects known from this area, there has been so far only one single paper on the subject of pan-continental early palaeoart of Asia (Bednarik 1994). This demonstrates not only an incredible imbalance in the coverage of the topic, that same imbalance is manifestly evident also in Africa and Australia. All three continents should be expected to contain significant occurrences of Ice Age palaeoart, yet there is not a single publication summarizing such material from Africa, and the only papers attempting this for both Asia and Australia are by one author. This is an incredible scenario, which is responsible for the massive misinformation that exists about the generic subject, over a century after the existence of Pleistocene art was generally accepted. Any review of the known corpus of rock art and mobiliary art from Asia that can credibly be attributed to the Pleistocene reflects this neglect. The quantity of this material currently available resembles the extremely poor resolution of the continent’s palaeoanthropological record. Since the rise of African palaeo- anthropology –which had itself been severely neglected in favour of Europe, and as a result of the Piltdown fraud– in the middle of the 20th century, that of Asia has been consistently neglected, and today finds such as the Flores specimens demonstrate vividly how inadequate our understanding of hominin evolution in Asia is. Precisely the same applies in palaeoart, and for much the same reason. But while Symposium Asie palaeoanthropology has to some extent managed to escape the gravitational pull of Europe, that revolution has yet to occur in palaeoart research, a field that as a consequence still remains in its infancy. The report of the world’s earliest known rock art from two central Indian sites (Bednarik et al. 2005) does not indicate that this is where this form of symbolic expression began. It merely illustrates that our knowledge of the subject still comprises mainly lacunae, and that any interpretations based on the available record must necessarily be premature. The wide distribution of the few reported occurrences across this vast continent confirms the precarious state of our knowledge. Clearly palaeoart has been created in Asia since Lower Palaeolithic times, but even its Upper Palaeolithic component is entirely inadequate to draw any justified conclusions. Apart from the Siberian corpus of mobiliary palaeoart, we have at present almost no other representatives even from the final part of the Pleistocene. This stands in stark contrast to both Europe and Australia, although in the latter continent it also remains almost entirely ignored. Siberia The reason for the ready acceptance of a series of portable palaeoart from central Siberia is almost certainly the fact that it comprises materials that are readily relatable to the central and western European body of the Final Pleistocene, such as anthropomorphous and zoomorphic sculptures and engraved plaques. The best- known are the thirty-three human-like figurines from Mal’ta and Buret’ (Fig. 1), mostly because they are often considered to be related to the female figurines especially of the Gravettian, reported from western and central Europe as well as from Russia and Ukraine. Fig. 1. Figurines from Mal’ta, central Siberia. However, the Siberian figurines differ in many aspects from those in Europe: few provide adequate indications of gender to define them as female; close to half show facial details (typically lacking in the European sample); some appear to be clothed, which is not the case with the European figurines; they are on average significantly smaller than the typical western examples; and the majority show indications of having been worn suspended on a string, whereas most of those from Europe would be too large to have been pendants. Moreover, the Siberian sample is considerably CD-944 BEDNARIK R.G., An overview of Asian palaeoart of the Pleistocene younger, the main corpus, from Mal’ta, being in the order of 15,000 years old. Apart from Buret’ N° 5 (steatite) and a clay figurine from Maininskaya, the entire Siberian sample is of mammoth ivory. It is questionable that these pendants are of a tradition that had some cultural connections with the so-called Venus figurines of Russia/Ukraine, central and western Europe. The same applies to all other forms of mobiliary palaeoart from these sites. Few if any have recognisable counterparts in Europe. The thirteen flying-bird pendants from Mal’ta plus one specimen from Buret’ are absent in European Palaeolithic art, as are the other three bird pendants, and the five nail-shaped pins or various further, apparently decorative items. Four sites have provided perforated disc beads (Afontova Gora II, Krasnyi Yar, Buret’ and Mal’ta) and perforated animal teeth, presumably also used as beads, have been reported from Verkholenskaya Gora and Afontova Gora II. Incised engravings on portable objects are usually geometric, as on the centrally perforated Mal’ta ivory plaque (Fig. 2), on the Oshurkovo pendant and incised bone, two of the circular discs from Afontova Gora II, another circular disc from Afontova Gora III (Fig. 3), and four intricately decorated objects from the Irkutsk Hospital or Voennyi site. Fig. 2. The Buret’ figurines Nos 3 and 4, central Siberia. Fig. 3. The engraved circular disc from Afontova Gora III, Siberia. CD-945 Symposium Asie Altogether, more than one hundred palaeoart or art-like finds have been reported from Siberia, including from five sites on the Angara / Belaya river (Buret', Krasnyi Yar, Ust'-Kova and Verkholenskaya Gora), eight on the upper Yenisey (Afontova Gora II, Afontova Gora III, Maininskaya, Dvouglazka Cave, Tachtik, Kokorevo, Novosselovo and Atchinskaya), two sites on the upper Ob river (Ust'-Kanskaya and Denissova Cave), two from south of Lake Baikal (Oshurkovo and Tolbaga), one on the Irtysh River (Cherno-Ozer'e), and another from the mouth of the Indigirka river (Berelekh). Of particular interest is the animal head carved on a projection of a second vertebra of a woolly rhinoceros from Tolbaga (Fig. 4). If Abramova (1990) is right that it relates to the older of the two dates secured from the site, 34,860 ± 2100 BP, it would be one of the oldest naturalistic sculptures known in the world, exceeded in age perhaps only by the recently found Hohle Fels female figurine (Conard 2009) and the Lower Paleolithic “proto-figurines”. Only two apparently figurative two-dimensional images are known from the Pleistocene of all Asia: the “mammoth” engravings found on a juvenile mammoth tusk from Berelekh and on a perforated ivory plaque from Mal’ta (Fig. 5). Of interest are also the stone and bone beads from Strashnaya Cave (Tolbor) and the perforated ostrich eggshell from Podzvonkaya, noting the finds of eggshell beads elsewhere in Asia (Mongolia and India). Some of these Siberian palaeoart finds are thought to be up to 40 ka old, bearing in mind that MP and UP traditions co-existed in parts of Siberia for a long time (43-27 ka BP), as did robust and gracile Homo sapiens forms. The decorated stone pendants from Khotyk are considered younger, between 25 and 30 ka (Volkov & Lbova 2009). Fig. 4. Animal head carved on a woolly rhinoceros vertebra, Tolbaga, south of Lake Baikal. Fig. 5. Presumed mammoth depictions from Siberia: a. Mal’ta; b. Berelekh. CD-946 BEDNARIK R.G., An overview of Asian palaeoart of the Pleistocene There have been a few claims for Pleistocene rock art from Siberia, particularly those by Okladnikov and colleagues (Okladnikov 1959, 1977: Fig 56-57; Okladnikov & Saporoshskaya 1959) concerning the sites Shishkino and Tal’ma. I have investigated these claims and the few painted zoomorphs in question are undoubtedly of the late Holocene (Bednarik & Devlet 1992). Many of the accompanying engraved figures were made with metal tools, and the painted motifs, fully exposed to precipitation on rapidly eroding sandstone, would not survive beyond a few millennia at the most. Even the claimed Pleistocene age of the paintings of two caves, Kapova and Ignatiev Caves, in the Ural Mountains –the watershed between Asia and Europe– needs to be reconsidered, now that one of the latter has been dated to the early Holocene (Bednarik 1993a; Steelman et al.